JUDGMENT : BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in a motor accident claim in the absence of driving licence for the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. 2. The first respondent has filed an application claiming compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. The learned Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the auto-rickshaw involved in the accident and awarded a total compensation of Rs.57,500/- under various heads. The Tribunal, based on an adverse inference, found that the driver of the auto-rickshaw was not holding a driving licence at the time of accident. Also found that the auto-rickshaw was covered by insurance with the appellant Insurance Company. In such a circumstance, the appellant was directed to pay the compensation awarded to the first respondent and permitted them to recover the same from the second respondent, owner-cum-driver of the auto-rickshaw. Aggrieved by the direction so issued by the Tribunal and praying for exonerating them from liability, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. In the nature of the judgment being passed in this appeal, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the provisions under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 did not compel payment of compensation by the Insurance Company at the first instance and to recover it from the insured/owner in a case where the driver was found not holding a driving licence. But, merely based on a mistake, the provisions under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 happened to be drafted in a way enabling the claimants to get compensation at the first instance from the Insurance Company and to get it reimbursed from the insured/owner subsequently. This argument is far fetched. When the new Act namely, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was enacted, the Legislature, in its wisdom, thought it fit to incorporate the provisions under Section 149. This Court cannot find fault with the provisions so incorporated in the new enactment on a comparison of some provisions in the erstwhile enactment. This argument is far fetched. When the new Act namely, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was enacted, the Legislature, in its wisdom, thought it fit to incorporate the provisions under Section 149. This Court cannot find fault with the provisions so incorporated in the new enactment on a comparison of some provisions in the erstwhile enactment. Moreover, interpreting the provisions under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court laid down that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant at the first instance and get that amount reimbursed from the insured/owner of the vehicle. This Court, for the first time, considered such a question in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha, 1996(1) KLT 393 and laid down that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant when the insurance cover for the vehicle is admitted and then to recover the amount so paid from the insured/owner of the vehicle. Subsequently, in a series of decisions, this Court reiterated that position of law. The Honourable Supreme Court considered the question whether the Insurance Company has initial liability to make payment to the claimant in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC) The Honourable Supreme Court has held that the Insurance Company is liable to make payment to the claimant and they can recover it from the insured/owner. In view of the provisions under Section 149 and in the light of the rulings of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court, the contentions raised by the appellant in this case are only to be rejected. Therefore, rejecting those contentions, this appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the recovery of the amount by the Insurance Company from the insured/owner will be possible only when the matters explained in Swaran Singh (supra) are satisfied. Appeal dismissed.